I cover the video game industry, write about gamers, and review video games.
You can follow me on Twitter and hit me up there if you have any questions or comments you'd like to chat about.
Disclosure: Many of the video games I review were provided as free review copies. This does not influence my coverage or reviews of these games.
I do not own stock in any of the companies I cover. I do not back any Kickstarter projects related to video games. I do not fund anyone in the industry on Patreon.

Gaming The System: How A Gaming Journalist Lost His Job Over A Negative Review

Over at Kotaku, Luke Plunkett has an interesting post up on the sort of conflict of interest some gaming journalists and websites face when penning honest reviews of video games.

To briefly summarize, long, long ago in a galaxy far away (called simply The Year of Our Lord 2007) a writer at GameSpot, Jeff Gerstmann, was fired. This came closely on the heels of his negative review of Kane & Lynch. Rumors that the publisher had applied pressure on GameSpot to get rid of Gerstmann ran rampant, and, it turns out, were all (mostly) true.

Though the publisher may not have actually applied the pressure, it turns out higher-ups at GameSpot were none too pleased with Gerstmann when Sony threatened to pull advertising over the review.

“As part of a recent deal that’s seen Gerstmann’s current employer Giant Bomb purchased by CBS Interactive (who also own GameSpot, his former employer), some full disclosure was needed from both parties as to what, exactly, went down that day five years ago,” Plunkett writes.

“So disclose Gerstmann has, confirming with GameSpot’s Jon Davison that after a succession of challenges with management and advertisers he was “called into a room” and “terminated” because he “couldn’t be trusted” as editorial director (ie, in charge of reviews), kicking off one of the saddest and sorriest episodes in an often sad and sorry relationship between games writers and games publishers.”

Sad indeed, and revelatory, too. As perhaps the most blatant possible way to illustrate a conflict of interest between gaming sites and publishers, terminating someone who gives a game a bad review isn’t just a terrible idea, it’s an ethical failure so poignant and grotesque that, as Plunkett says, one has a difficult time getting that bitter taste off the tongue just reading about it five years later.

I’ve been talking a lot lately about building trust between brands and audiences, and the importance of maintaining consumer trust for game developers. The ongoing Mass Effect saga is a lovely vehicle for this discussion. But a larger problem exists within gaming journalism, and certainly the GameSpot affair illustrates this in gritty detail.

While I’m still only digging into the details here, other instances of games and access being withheld to sites that hand out negative reviews have been reported.

Often the most pernicious form conflict of interest takes is the kind that bubbles about just below the surface, barely visible even to its participants. Sometimes all it takes is an amicable relationship between a game publisher and a journalism outfit. The fear of stepping on the toes of those you like and admire can be as debilitating as the fear of biting the hand that feeds you.

I’ve seen this same thing in political journalism. Real hard-hitting journalism is often discouraged by closing off access to journalists who won’t accept the official line. That access is precious, but often as not journalists don’t even think of it that way. They build friendships with the subjects of their reporting.

Glenn Greenwald has described these insider journalists as “desperate worshipers of political power who are far more eager to be part of it and to serve it than to act as adversarial checks against it” who are “Royal Court Spokespeople regardless of which monarch is ruling.”

Trust is formed between the reporter and the subject, but that trust can come at a cost.

When this conflict of interest shatters the far more important trust that ought to exist between journalist and audience, well then Houston, we have a problem.

Post Your Comment

Post Your Reply

Forbes writers have the ability to call out member comments they find particularly interesting. Called-out comments are highlighted across the Forbes network. You'll be notified if your comment is called out.

Comments

This is the interview where Jeff affirms the speculation regarding his termination. He even goes out of his way to mention that this is by no means an isolated incident (which might be obvious to some regardless), and has actually been the result of a culmination of similar threats and loss in revenue due to game publishers pulling advertisements. Something which had been going on over the course of many years, something he attests to experiencing even during the PS1 era.

Which comes as no surprise, game journalism has by no means changed very much over the years. Critics are still at the mercy of game publishers for review copies and ad revenue. It’s no surprise that it hasn’t changed. This is the most profitable route for both parties involved, the only reason it works is due to consumer ignorance allowing it to happen. Gaming is still in its infancy compared to other mediums and was unfortunately conceived in an era of ethical turmoil.

It might be “in its infancy” as far as mass market appeal goes, especially growing tremendously since the release of the Xbox in 2001, but let’s not forget that it IS the biggest entertainment industry and has both overtaken the profits made by the music industry (in 2007) and sped by the movie industry (in 2009), with Call of Duty in 2011 it also managed to break the record of the fastest selling entertainment product to break $1 billion dollars, replacing Avatar. This is especially one of the reasons why journalism with some integrity behind it is sorely required.

I was somewhat suspecting this with the surprisingly copious amount of ‘fan entitlement’ criticism from the major gaming websites such as Gamespot, IGN, Kotaku, Destructoid, etc while the opposite was seen in more smaller, personal reviews.

Given EA’s track record, I have a hard time not believing this is true. It’s sad, but then given how the media is usually steered in favor to the one in power or influence… It’s hard not to think of a scenario of EA asking the other reviewers for a good word either by money or just peer pressure.

The more disgusting scenario I can think of is the websites doing it on purpose, hoping that they can earn some scores from EA.

But that’s just the cynical me speculatin’.

(But then again, Casey Hudson DID wanted people to speculate after the game. ;D)

This would be the incident I mentioned in your article discussing Mr. Muzyaka’s statement regarding the Mass Effect controversy.

Honestly, what you are reporting on here between this and the ME3 endings, is the bubbling up of issues that have plagued a rather young and inexperienced consumer base for years.

The independent youtube video game reviewer and the “Let’s Play” phenomena both have their roots in base consumer distrust in large reviewing firms like IGN and Gamespot, who have given strong vibes of corporate loyalty over journalistic integrity in the past.

In many ways, these reports combined with the Mass Effect fights, are a mini-consumer revolution against an industry that’s, quite frankly, taken for granted the fact that their consumer base is rapidly growing up and feeling they need value for their hard earned dollar.

It will be interesting to see how this all plays out, if only because if it escalates much more, it may change the nature of consumer/reviewer relations.

As if we didn’t already know that the reviews were rigged. Game reviews have been at an all time low for years. Gamespot isn’t worthy of the place that i accidentally dripple on when i shake it after taking a piss.

Forbes has shown itself to be a reliable, dedicated, and objective source of news for gamers through this entire Mass Effect debacle and I am happy to see it report on the facts and in favor of the community when favor is due. This type of behavior doesn’t surprise me at all and is one more reason I’ll be using this outlet as a primary source.

I wish to acknowledge and thank your study, investigation, and elucidation of this topic. It has sorely gone unwatched and unpunished in many circles even though the gaming industry makes almost twice as much as the movie industry in this country. I salute your integrity and can only hope that you continue with these efforts and to DEFEND the integrity of authentic journalism.

It is sad to see how shallow one site can go to protect their ”interests” and puts it about the truth. It is shameful that they call themselves ”independent ” journalists.

Don’t believe me ? Just look at their latest articles and the video of Colin what’s-his-name…. You know what, don’t. Don’t give them more hits.

We are in harsh times that gamers cannot trust a news site without getting backstabbed, spending their money for non-quality products. And those news sites who suppose to look out for its readers’ interests , they are leading this charade under the guise of ”free journalism”…

Since when boot-licking become a journalism ? And those who blindly support these sites actually hurt us even more. I think it is time for us to wise up and see behind the curtain, the background deals and how Companies and these ”trusted” sites working together to ”screw” the customers….

It is quite sad that we talk about these things but it is the sad truth nontheless…

In regards to IGN there’s an even more pressing issue, one of the staff writers (that also wrote articles about Mass Effect 3 before the reveal) got a part in said game. Jessica Chobot that is, in other businesses that would be something called a “conflict of interest”, she is also a host to the G4 network and a regular in gaming shows (X-Play/Attack of the Show/Feedback) and married to another host (Blair Herter), unsurprisingly both G4 and IGN gave Mass Effect 3 very favourable scores (5/5 and 95%).